Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

And thus, it begins.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: And thus, it begins.

    Originally posted by Peck
    You know, there is something I've been wanting to ask you for a long time & I just don't do it cause I can't think of anyway to ask it without sounding like an @ss. Ok, for kegboy's benefit I always sound like an @ss but that is another point.

    So I'm just going to go ahead & ask it & hope that you understand that I don't mean anything by it.

    Which did you like more, last seasons 61 win E.C. finals team or the 99/00 56 win W.C. finals team?

    Cause everytime I hear you wax nastalgic it is always over last years team & whenever I do it always goes back to that team.

    I have a feeling you liked last season better.
    Never thought about that before. Are you asking me which team I enjoyed more, or which season I enjoyed more. Sorry, I'm not trying to make it difficult.

    I liked last seasons team more. But I gues I enjoyed the 2000 season more, because finally beating the Knicks and getting to the NBA Finals was the best feeling I've had as a Pacer fan.

    The 2000 team was like a machine, efficient and workmanlike. Last years team was not as smooth or efficient, but I think more fun to watch.

    And this season, before 11/19, I was as convinced as I ever could be that this was the best Pacers team I had seen, and that was with some injuries.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: And thus, it begins.

      Originally posted by Unclebuck
      You guys say what you want, but I loved that article. Yes Artest is worth waiting for and while it is certainly in the Pacers best interests to say that Ronnie is and will be a changed man, I guess I am willing to wait and find out.
      I was waiting for someone to say that. I really did like the article, too, it was nice to hear and gave hope. You can't miss 73 games and not be changed.

      Bender needs to go. Somehow. And I still don't understand why the hell we don't play Croshere at all. The man is pretty solit.
      Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: And thus, it begins.

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        Never thought about that before. Are you asking me which team I enjoyed more, or which season I enjoyed more. Sorry, I'm not trying to make it difficult.

        I liked last seasons team more. But I gues I enjoyed the 2000 season more, because finally beating the Knicks and getting to the NBA Finals was the best feeling I've had as a Pacer fan.

        The 2000 team was like a machine, efficient and workmanlike. Last years team was not as smooth or efficient, but I think more fun to watch.

        And this season, before 11/19, I was as convinced as I ever could be that this was the best Pacers team I had seen, and that was with some injuries.
        Again, further proof of the differances of what we like.

        I like skill which you just described to a T with the 00 team. Machine, efficient & workmanlike.

        While you like athleticism, hence last seasons team.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: And thus, it begins.

          Lets see...

          Can't trade Ron, except for chump change and DW/LB won't do that.
          Can't trade Bender, he has no value.
          Can't trade Cro, nobody wants his contract.
          Won't trade Reggie.
          Can't trade JO, he's the franchise.
          Can't trade Tinsley, obviously. :-)

          Probably shouldn't trade Jax.
          Probably shouldn't trade Harrison.

          Foster has trade value, but actually makes about what he's worth and will be a good backup 4/5 once Harrison takes over the starting job.

          Noboby wants Johnson, Gill, Edwards.

          So, what can we get for the Jones boys and Pollard (or Foster)?

          As much as I'd love to trade FJ, JJ, and Jeff for Redd (and filler), I just don't think that's going to happen. Or Ron and Austin for Paul Pierce for that matter.
          You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
          All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

          - Jimmy Buffett

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: And thus, it begins.

            aren't there a few malcontents out there earning 13 - 14 mil in their last year of contract? something that would render the team that has that person without anything at the end of the season, something that would fill our void at SG/SF and come of the books at the end of the season?
            maybe, just maybe we can give them a near starting quality PF and a great prospect in return?





            hope: mankind's best friend to make it through the day
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: And thus, it begins.

              LAL have a glut of SF's would they like AC???
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: And thus, it begins.

                Hey I do now want Walker on our team. But if we can rent him for a year at the price of Cro finding a home that will give him pt and dumping Bender than I would be all for it. If they can find a way to throw in AJ I would be thrilled. You never know the Hawks just might be willing to make that trade.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: And thus, it begins.

                  Originally posted by indygeezer
                  I've not heard that story.
                  Me neither. When did this come out? Do you have a link to the story anywhere peck?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: And thus, it begins.

                    hmmm How about Pollard, Bender and Freddie for Lorenzen Wright and Bonzi Wells?

                    I dont really want Bonzi either but he is a capable scorer.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: And thus, it begins.

                      Originally posted by btownpacer
                      I doubt it's in print anywhere, but I'll vouch for its authenticity. So now you have two unverifiable, anonymous sources claiming it. You could work for CBS.

                      But wait....before I report it, what was the story?

                      Thank you in advance
                      Craig Sagar
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: And thus, it begins.

                        ROFL geezer!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: And thus, it begins.

                          Originally posted by indygeezer
                          But wait....before I report it, what was the story?

                          Thank you in advance
                          Craig Sagar
                          It's all part of the same story of Ron retiring.

                          I don't have a lot of time but here is the brief.

                          After quiting on the team & after Carlisle convinced him to stay, Rick told Ron that he didn't have to go with the team to Min.

                          Ron has a change of heart & takes his own flight & goes meets the team at the target center.

                          Upon entering the locker room, he is met by J.O. who is furious that Ron had quite the team. He then procedes to tell him to get out of the locker room & that he was no longer a member of his team.

                          Ron refuses to leave & J.O. attempts to physcially throw him out the door. Of course other players step in & attempt to break it up.

                          They play the game.

                          After the game as Ron attempts to board the team plane he is once again met by J.O. who tells him once again that he is not a member of the team & that he will not be flying back to Indy with the club. Again another shoving match ensues. This time Carlisle convinces Ron to take another plane.

                          Next home game, L.A. Clippers, J.O. has already been told by the staff to have no contact with Artest. From what I was told Ron was not allowed in the locker room until J.O. went to the floor for pre-game warm ups.

                          The mood in the locker room was supposed to be the lowest ever & thus a very large factor when we got whipped so bad by the Clips.

                          I've heard this story now from two differant sources & they are very similar. The only real differance was the fact that Ron wasn't allowed in the locker room for the Clippers game & how physical the confrontation was on the plane.

                          This is just the tip of the iceberg btw.

                          Look I hate as much as anyone when someone comes on here with mysterious sources & boogymen like apperances so normally I wouldn't even repeat this.

                          So if you don't want to beleive me, I understand. But there are several people on here who will back up my story from the one source & my other one backs his up.

                          Sorry, that really sounds crappy. Again if you wanna discount what I'm saying I understand. I trust my person but I understand why others wouldn't.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: And thus, it begins.

                            Hmm hate to say this, but uhh I vouch for Peck.

                            Not that I hate to vouch for Peck, but uhhh the story is somewhat ugly.

                            However, this is not something that is/was unmendable, but it will take some doing, groveling, soothing, painkillers and lots of other voodoo stuff to make it better.

                            At least that is what I would like to believe.
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: And thus, it begins.

                              I can vouch for this story as well. That makes 3 unverifiable, anonymous sources claiming it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: And thus, it begins.

                                And you know, it's this story that pisses me off more than the brawl ever will concerning Ron. I can at least understand the brawl. But he tried to quit on this team the year it was primed for its best shot at a title. Quit. The "wants to win so bad he acts crazy" SF that everyone loves. That sent me to the dark side of the Artest debate.

                                As for the article, all I can say is I hope like hell Bird is proven correct, I really do. Because that would make us a hell of a good team for years. But then, if he's acting sane, but he and JO still like to snap at each other's throats, can it last?

                                *edit* I'm referring to Bird saying Ron's going to be or is a changed man

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X